Change Classical to Commentarial

[TRobinson465]

I'll wrap it up here.

This forum doesn't have a section wherein the Theravadin canon can not be disputed but the commentaries can be disputed separating the two.

This is a good point. Although I would still say classical is still the best term because it conveys the Orthodox definition of Theravada based on what was defined in the Theravada councils and how it is practiced in 90% of the Theravada Buddhist world. But your right there's no place here where you can't dispute canonical texts but not commentaries. It's basically just classical Theravada or free for all Theravada that includes everything from secular Buddhists who don't beleive in Mahayana sutras so they are just vaguely defined as Theravada secular Buddhists who deny certain canonical texts and teachings as either forgeries or intricate metaphors for secular philosophies, to full on classical Theravada which accepts all of the ancient texts, and everything in between such as EBT, Dipitikans etc.

If another subforum was to be made it should simply be called canonical Theravada rather than redefining classical as commentarial as this would just cause confusion. Although not sure how much demand there is for such a sub forum.

[Gwi II]

....

But sorry.

What do you mean by inventive? What have i invented?

The commentators on the other hand have invented quite a lot, but we don't need to call it Inventive Tradition.

I think that calling it Inventive Tradition isn't a good idea, it's somewhat deragatory & confusing as i see it but Commentatial would be most accurate.

I will include it in the poll anyway since you brought it up.

Not-Canonical is also an option but i think it's definitely too broad of a term.

'Classical' gives the impression of orthodoxy as in 'being canonical' which it isn't.

Also not that many Theravadins subscribe to it, afaik most do not and it has never been otherwise.

* super really perfect posting!

Why is this account gone? He's a good friend.
If anyone correctly says, "This is one of the
smart answers," @User13866's comment is
among the correct ones.

I'M VOTE COMMENTARIAL!

[Gwi II]

Are you going to muster any argumentation other than ad-hominem?

Those weren’t ad homs.

Don't talk to me please. Since you are rejecting sutta as fake i've no interest in conversing.

He suggested that i brought this up because i am jealous, that's ad hominem..

[Gwi II]

Don't talk to me please. Since you are rejecting sutta as fake i've no interest in conversing.

He suggested that i brought this up because i am jealous, that's ad hominem..

He made a statement there, not an argument as far as I can see. Regarding “rejecting suttas as fake”, I really have no idea what you are talking about.

He made a statement in order to invalidate my position. It's obviously bad form of discussion, as a matter of fact he has not contributed to the discussion i any other way other than suggesting that i am bringing this up due to a flaw in my character.

He also asserted his commentaries to be a truth not widely recognized, which has not been established as a truth by him, which makes it an unsubatantiated claim.

As to Sutta, iirc you questioned the authenticity of AN 10.7 Sariputta Sutta did you not?

[Gwi II]

I'll wrap it up here.

This forum doesn't have a section wherein the Theravadin canon can not be disputed but the commentaries can be disputed separating the two.

The way the forum is setup is Sutta vs Commentary, which is dumb as it leaves out the canonical Theravada Abhidhamma books as if it's not a part of the canon.

There should be a canonical section and a commentarial section.

If the canonical is called canonical then the comentarial can be called cassical or whatever.

As it is now, this board generally misrepresents Theravada school by lumping it's canon with commentaries and calling it "classical theravada".

Edit: Screenshot has been taken